tv Special Report With Bret Baier FOX News September 15, 2009 6:43pm-7:00pm EDT
president? >> of course after the 2000 election, there were questions about whether or not the supreme court had given him the race, but it had nothing to do with race. it was just that people didn't like george bush and they said horrible things about george bush, too, but they didn't say it in the house of are representatives during the joint session. he had hissed at him and some booed him but they didn't say something like that. i think you're picking up this sensitivity. it is the subtext that people are pricking up, and given our country's history of racial animosity, you have to be care. if bret: but on the nip side, don't you have to be careful when you level the charge? it is a blunt object of racism when you level that charge. it is a big charge. >> it is huge. i find it awful. i think you have to be very careful with it, but this is a situation where if you have someone like joe wilson and you heard the litany against him, sons of a confederate veteran, someone who said
strom thurmond's daughter was smearing strom thurmond by saying he is her daddy when shes was black, but he apologizes for it and then raises money on it, playing to the sentiment, not only the anti-obama sentiment but the sentiment of people who may have problems because of obama's race and that's where everybody gets a little ticklish. bret: steve. >> there is zero evidence that saying "you lie!" with the president of the united states has anything to do with race. it is a disgusting smear for anybody to suggest that. it is sort of a sad day when we get to the point where a columnist in the new york times can just imagine that something is saying, literally putting words in somebody's mouth, and prefaced the statement "fair or not, i heard you say you lie, boy." that's not fair. as a journalist, you can't just imagine people saying things. you have to criticize him on what they actually say. i agree that he was out of line. he shouldn't have yelled at
the president from the floor. it was inappropriate. he apologized. there was a time right after it happened that both the white house and nancy pelosi wanted to just move on. that time apparently has passed, because i think they believe there is political advantage to making this a bigger deal. i'm not sure it works. i think this could very well backfire. the vast majority of people who disagree with the president disagree with him because they disagree strongly with his policies but do so with goodwill. >> you know, the accusation of racism is a sign of desperation by people who know they are losing the national debate, and they want to hurl the ultimate charge in american politics. this is dealing from the bottom of the deck, and i agree that it is a disgusting tactic. it's done as a way to end debate. the minute you call somebody a racist, the debate is over. you don't continue. i mean, accusations of racism are the left refuge of the liberal coun drell. as for maur maureen dowd,
imagining a word that wasn't said, in my previous profession, i saw a lot of people who heard words that also weren't said. they were called patients. many of them were helped with medication. the reason she won't be and others who are hurling the accusation is because it is a deliberate attempt to change the subject and discredit the opposition with an unprovable and unproven add homonym. >> last word on this, i don't think that the white house wants this conversation. i don't think democrats on the hill, the leadership, pelosi didn't want the conversation. i think jim clyburn in the leadership from south carolina has pushed this heavily. i think it is being picked up and stoked by many who have a legitimate fear. you can talk about, you know, this is somehow ending the debate about healthcare. i don't think that helps the democrats at all. i think there are lots of people who read it as it is criticizing the president. last time the president got involved with this in the gates' situation, it was his
>> i think there is a going sense that more senators want to vote for healthcare reform and pass it than not. >> i cannot agree with him on this bill. there is no way in the present form that i will vote for it. >> it includes massive cuts in medicare, tax increases on individuals an tax increases on business and i don't
think that's a package that very many republicans are going to support, but senator grassley and senator enzi can speak for themselves. bret: after eight months of work, senate finance committee chairman max baucus still lacks a single g.o.p. vote for his plan. here is what the plan looks like, as we have reported tonight. $880 billion mandates individual insurance coverage, excludes a government insurance option, that's a public option, and also includes government-initiated non-profit co-ops instead of the public option, blocks illegal immigrants with i.d. vair fik, blocks federal funds for abortion and reforms and reduces medical malpractice lawsuits in some form. we're back with our panel. those are the bullet points. steve. >> well, i think what we saw today is pretty much what we expected from plasm baucus. it's a far more specific set of policy priorities than the president had laid out to this point, and i'd say it's far
more honest. you have, i think, on the plus side for democrats or for at least max baucus, the congressional budget office, as carl cameron reported, saying that it won't increase the deficit over ten years and may ultimately lower healthcare costs, but then you have the question of paying for it, and you have these massive taxes on insurance companies which will no doubt be passed along to the insurer, so i think that's going to be a huge sticking point as the debate goes forward, when we finally, after all these months of discussion, get down to serious discussions or serious negotiations about how to pay for it. bret: juan, we say that there is not a single republican vote as of yet in that committee but you just heard senator rockefeller who is saying there are democrats who will not be onboard with this, either. >> they have a strong majority, but when you hear rockefeller say that, that is a troubling sign. this comes out of that committee really as baucus' bill. i would be interested to hear,
you know, if, in fact, you're going to to get senator enzi, if you will get senator grassley offering any support, but let's just imagine, just say that baucus takes this to his commit committee and is able to get it out of the committee without the support of the rockefellers of the world, and then we have a bill and are able to see the outlines of what obama and the democrats are going to stand for. i think this is the point where you are going to see intense power play negotiations and bargaining take place. bret: you may have pushback calling rock feller a moderate democrat. charles. >> baucus is a man that people have been seeking for a few thousand years. this is a honest bill. the reason that the program has been in trouble at the begin since obama had said expanded coverage and cut in costs. everyone understands that is a
fantasy so he amended expand coverage but keep costs neutral. you can't do that. baw baucus has tried to do it. he has two choices -- huge amounts of taxes on huge subsidies on people who have to buy insurance now, which would make it extremely revenue non-niewtd tral. it would cause a huge deficit, or you do what he did, which is individual mandates, so people in the middle class, millions of them, are going to have to purchase insurance, which will cost up to 13% of their income, which is like doubling their rent, so the burden is either on the government that will be subsidizing it or if the subsidies are kept low to keep it revenue neutral as mr. baucus is doing, the burden will fall on people in the middle class, so one way or the other, there is going to be a huge hit, either on the middle class or on the deficit. baucus has made all of that cheer, open and obvious. he has a huge hit on the middle class, and a huge
burden in taxes, and that's why it is going to be going left and right and i don't see how it survives. bret: does this administration sign on to this bill? >> i don't think they can afford to sign on. as we have seen the president do, he will say he likes parts of it but doesn't like other parts of it. bret: we'll see. that's it for the panel. stay tuned for the president weighing in on another television show. .
my name is chef michael. and when i come home from my restaurant, i love showing bailey how special she is. yes, you are. i know exactly what you love, don't i? - [ barks ] - mmm. aromas like rotisserie chicken. and filet mignon. yeah, that's what inspired a very special dry dog food. [ woman ] introducing chef michael's canine creations. so tasty and nutritious it's hard to believe it's dry dog food. chef-inspired. dog-desired. chef michael's canine creations. to dry a third faster than ordinary towels. so they spend less time in the dryer and more time where you really want them. canopy home furnishings. available at walmart. save money. live better. walmart.